CC PACKET 10231984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 -5- • 1 The' hearing ,was closed at 8:38 P.M: for Commission consideration of a recommendation : 2 to the Council on the request. 3 4 During the development of a. motion, Commissioner. Bjorklund questioned whether 5 . permi-t.ti.ng only 10 feet between adjoining garage structures complied. with the 6 -Ordinance intention regarding the provision of access -for emergency-.vehicles -and, 7 in response,.to the proposed finding regarding two car garages, commented that one - 8 'of the. Metropolitan Council 's major objections to St. .Anthony's Zoning Ordinance 9 had been the requirement for two car garages, which poor people would find too 10 expensive to build. The maker of the motion indicated his intention of leaving 11 that finding in the motion. 12 13 The Chair commented that the fact that the adjoining garage was a free standing 14 structure made it easier for him to recommend approval of the request. 15 16 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to recommend- 17 the Council grant the requested 5 foot 9 inch sideyard setback variance to Ronald 18 L. Hansen, which would allow him to make the garage and family room addition he 19 proposes on the west and south side of his existing §arage and home at 2704 - 20 32nd Avenue N.E. , finding that: 21 22 1 . The proposed garage addition would be adjacent to a free standing garage on the 23 west and would not now, or likely ever, be adjacent to living quarters on that 24 property; 25 26 2. Permitting a two car garage would. bring the structure into conformance with �. 27 the City Zoning Ordinance; 28 29 3. The original purpose of the City Ordinance requiring sideyard setbacks large 30 enough for emergency equipment and vehicles to gain access to the property 31 would not be a valid consideration in granting this variance because, with. the 32 line of utility poles in the area behind the two garages, such access would 33 necessarily have to be on the other side of the house; 34 35 4. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon the desire 36 of the property owner to increase the value or income potential of the parcel 37 of land since it is perceived the cost of construction would exceed what the 38 property would appreciate because of the improvement; 39 40 5. There were no neighbor objections to the variance and, in fact, the applicant 41 had submitted a petition signed by six of the adjacent and abutting property 42 owners which indicated they had no objections to the proposal and supported the 43 granting of a variance for the garage addition as proposed. 44 45 Voting on the motion: 46 47 Aye: Jones, Bowerman, Zawislak, Franzese, Bjorklund, and Wagner. 48 49 Abstention: Hansen. 50 - 51 Motion carried. • 52 53 Copies of the Planning Institute to be held November 30,. 1984 had been distributed 54 to Commission members before the meeting: Commissioner Hansen indicated an inter- 55 est in attending.